JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals arise against the same judgment dated 28.11.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT case No. 74/2005, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.2.2005 at about 9.30 P.M. claimant Narayan Singh along with his family members, was returning to his home from village Futkuan in Alto Car No. U.A. 04-B/6524. When he reached near Radhaswamy Satsang Rampur Road Haldwani, an unknown vehicle coming from opposite direction, dashed the Alto Car in rash and negligent manner due to which the Car overturned and the claimant and his family members sustained injuries. The claimant was brought to Sushila Tiwari Memorial Hospital Haldwani where he was treated for his injuries. According to the claimant he spent about Rs. 60,000/- on his treatment and he remained bedridden for about six months. Therefore he filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party/ M/s ICICI Lombard Pvt. Motors General Insurer contested the petition before the Tribunal and alleged that the petition was filed on wrong facts. It further alleged that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the claimant and the driver of the Car was not having valid driving license. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed following issues in the claim petition:- 1. Whether on 3.2.2005 at about 9.30 P.M. when the claimant was coming from village Futkuan along with his family members in Car bearing registration No. U.A. 04-B/6524, near Radhaswamy Satsant Rampur Road Haldwani, a truck coming from opposite direction in a high speed, came on wrong side of the road and dashed the car on muddy side, in which the claimant sustained grievous injuries?. 2. Whether the driver was possessing valid driving license?. 3. Whether the car in question was insured with the opposite party?. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation? If so, how-much? 5. The claimant, in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1 and also filed documentary evidence. The opposite party did not adduce any kind of evidence. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, decreed the petition for a sum of Rs. If so, how-much? 5. The claimant, in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1 and also filed documentary evidence. The opposite party did not adduce any kind of evidence. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, decreed the petition for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award the claimant has preferred A.O. No. 63/2007 for enhancement of the amount of compensation and the insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred A.O. No. 62/2007 for setting aside the impugned award. 7. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record. 8. The record reveals that the claimant suffered a fracture in the right patella. He had to undergo the minor operation for partial patellectemy and cylindrical slab had to be applied. Subsequently the stitches on the injuries were removed by the doctor and at the time of the discharge the doctor found the condition of the claimant as satisfactory. Paper No. 6-C/2 available on record shows that on 3rd February, 2005, when the accident took place and the claimant was taken to the hospital the doctor found the fracture on right patella. The doctor advised some investigation like C.T. Scan, X-ray Chest and X-ray knee. The doctor also reviewed the condition of the claimant after six days in O.P.D. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant is indicative of this fact that he certainly suffered pain and agony as he had to undergo operation of his right patella. Although the claimant has stated that he invested a sum of Rs. One lac in the hospital but he did not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence in support of his case. The claimant could file bills pertaining to Rs. 6,785/- regarding his medical treatment. It is true that the claimant must have invested much more than the amount for which he has filed the bills before the Tribunal. The medical treatment now a days has become very expensive. The claimant could file bills pertaining to Rs. 6,785/- regarding his medical treatment. It is true that the claimant must have invested much more than the amount for which he has filed the bills before the Tribunal. The medical treatment now a days has become very expensive. The record shows that the claimant had to be admitted in Sushila Tiwari Memorial forest Hospital for his treatment and he had undergone the operation by the doctor over there. The tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the claimant for his medical treatment, pain and suffering as well as financial loss, which to my mind appears to be quite meager. 9. Keeping in view the injuries sustained by the claimant I am of the view that the claimant should get at least a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, for his medical, mental agony, sufferance and financial loss, instead of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal filed by the claimant is liable to be partly allowed and the appeal filed by the insurer of the offending Car, is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the A.O. No. 63/2007, is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 30,000/- as has been awarded by the tribunal, along with the interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 12. The A.O. No. 62/2007 filed by the insurer of the offending car is dismissed. 13. The statutory amount of compensation deposited with this court be remitted to the tribunal concerned. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 62/2007.